Voter fraud is the biggest lie of 2012

[a777pilot]

Well they had good reason to resist, considering how flawed the cross reference list was that Florida was trying to use.

Don't kid yourselves into thinking this was some great legal victory. Both sides still have to agree to certain things, which in the end will limit Florida's ability to suppress voting.

In what world is deleting non-US citizens from being able to vote, suppressing the vote?

 

[shortylickens]

In what world is deleting non-US citizens from being able to vote, suppressing the vote?

In the world where liberals are so desperate to win elections they import voters.

There is absolutely no good reason to NOT verify someones eligibility to vote, especially when we've got 11 million illegal aliens running around America. Yet they go out of their way to fight this issue.

 

[a777pilot]

In the world where liberals are so desperate to win elections they import voters.

There is absolutely no good reason to NOT verify someones eligibility to vote, especially when we've got 11 million illegal aliens running around America. Yet they go out of their way to fight this issue.

This ^^^^^^^^^

 

[techs]

In what world is deleting non-US citizens from being able to vote, suppressing the vote?

It is when you delete hundreds of thousands of legitimate citizens because one or two non citizens are voting.

 

[Jhhnn]

You say passive then you describe active. You MUST do something to be registerd to vote - it does not happen with you ACTIVELY doing something. It is obvious some otherwise lawful voters are not able to vote due to voter registration being a requirement.

Again I ask, why are you supporting voter suppression by supporting voter registration?

Any dem can answer this question.

Nice troll, already asked & answered. Are you advocating no voter registration, or just talking trash?

 

[a777pilot]

It is when you delete hundreds of thousands of legitimate citizens because one or two non citizens are voting.

No one has been deleted that should not have been. All actual people that may be deleted are sent a notice. If they are in fact eligible to vote they will not be deleted from the registration list.

Besides there were only 180,000 names on the initial list, so it is hard to delete "hundreds of thousands of legitimate citizens".

 

[Jhhnn]

Righties are truly shameless in this, relying entirely on faith based arguments in support of something they don't really understand at all.

Current efforts by their leadership will likely suppress the legitimate vote among certain segments of the population. That's beyond obvious, and their unwillingness to recognize that casts doubt on their intentions entirely. We have the pronouncements of prominent Repubs past & present further confirming those suspicions, along with 100 years of Jim Crow administered at the hands of conservatives.

This isn't about anything other than poor people, brown people, black people & so forth having the temerity to actually vote, to upset the applecart of white suburban & rural voters. It's about Repub leaders attempting to maintain electoral relevance against the tide of changing demographics while maintaining their, ideology which is increasingly irrelevant if not outright damaging to this country in the face of the enormous shift of income to the tippy-top over the reign of trickledown economics. No matter how rich you are, you only get one vote, so the answer to that is to inhibit voting among the non-rich by whatever means are palatable to your own voting base. Given the fawning & knob-slobbering administered to the wealthy by middle class right wing delusionists, there's not much they'd find unpalatable, at all.

 

[TerryMathews]

Righties are truly shameless in this, relying entirely on faith based arguments in support of something they don't really understand at all.

Current efforts by their leadership will likely suppress the legitimate vote among certain segments of the population. That's beyond obvious, and their unwillingness to recognize that casts doubt on their intentions entirely. We have the pronouncements of prominent Repubs past & present further confirming those suspicions, along with 100 years of Jim Crow administered at the hands of conservatives.

This isn't about anything other than poor people, brown people, black people & so forth having the temerity to actually vote, to upset the applecart of white suburban & rural voters. It's about Repub leaders attempting to maintain electoral relevance against the tide of changing demographics while maintaining their, ideology which is increasingly irrelevant if not outright damaging to this country in the face of the enormous shift of income to the tippy-top over the reign of trickledown economics. No matter how rich you are, you only get one vote, so the answer to that is to inhibit voting among the non-rich by whatever means are palatable to your own voting base. Given the fawning & knob-slobbering administered to the wealthy by middle class right wing delusionists, there's not much they'd find unpalatable, at all.

The only browns I'm against voting are the illegal ones. Of course with Obama having an approval in the 40s optimistically, i can understand why you want to use the DREAM act to compel illegal votes.

Its funny, you know one of the hardest demographics on people who immigrate illegally and utilize services they aren't entitled to? Legal immigrants. Democratic strategists are the only ones arguing against any sort of effective control on voter registration.

 

[Jhhnn]

The only browns I'm against voting are the illegal ones. Of course with Obama having an approval in the 40s optimistically, i can understand why you want to use the DREAM act to compel illegal votes.

Its funny, you know one of the hardest demographics on people who immigrate illegally and utilize services they aren't entitled to? Legal immigrants. Democratic strategists are the only ones arguing against any sort of effective control on voter registration.

Right back to faith based innuendo with obfuscation, as if current repub efforts won't disenfranchise legit voters at all.

Your leadership claims there's a disease, even though they can't prove one exists, them proposes a demonstrably damaging cure, an amputation of many legit voters, and you go for it as if there were no side effects at all.

They know what they're doing, and it isn't what they're telling you, but you refuse to believe the truth of it because of brand loyalty, identity politics.

If we raise voting requirements to a level where only zealots choose to participate, it's obvious who'll win, which is the whole point entirely.

 

[cybrsage]

Nice troll, already asked & answered. Are you advocating no voter registration, or just talking trash?

No, you did not actually answer. If you did, either link to it or repost it.

We both know that some voters will not register and therefor not be able to vote. Therefor, it is voter suppression to support voter registration.

Again I ask, why are you supporting voter suppression by supporting voter registration?

 

[cybrsage]

Can ANYONE actually answer why voter suppression is OK when it is due to requiring voters to register? Anyone?

*crickets*

 

[Jhhnn]

No, you did not actually answer. If you did, either link to it or repost it.

We both know that some voters will not register and therefor not be able to vote. Therefor, it is voter suppression to support voter registration.

Again I ask, why are you supporting voter suppression by supporting voter registration?

It was answered by you, when you refused to say whether you advocated registration-less voting or not.

In that refusal, you reveal the whole line of argument as a troll & duh-version from your support of photo ID to vote, which is obviously a much more restrictive form of registration than what we already have.

I support the system that's worked well for a very long time, which involves minimal qualifications & restrictions. It obviously has, given the dearth of real world examples showing it hasn't. I'd rather it be inclusive than exclusive, even if rare instances of "voter fraud" occur. In that, I'm the true Conservative, the Libertarian, the Egalitarian, and "Voter Fraud" crusaders are the dishonest radicals attempting to restrict the franchise to serve their own undemocratic ends.

Yes- unlike the founder of ALEC, I want every mentally competent citizen 18 or older to vote in every election, and I want that voluntary process to be as painless as is reasonably possible. I support early voting, extended poll hours, easier absentee voting, vote by mail as in Oregon, even voting from prison as in Maine & Vermont.

I support freedom & responsibility together, and voting is fundamental to that.

 

[shira]

You say passive then you describe active. You MUST do something to be registerd to vote - it does not happen with you ACTIVELY doing something. It is obvious some otherwise lawful voters are not able to vote due to voter registration being a requirement.

Again I ask, why are you supporting voter suppression by supporting voter registration?

Any dem can answer this question.

I'm staring at the current state, with 750,000 Pennsylvania residents ALREADY registered to vote who don't have IDs.

But YOU now want to burden them with an additional step that requires them to obtain IDs. Why? Why do you want to suppress their votes?

 

[shira]

Can ANYONE actually answer why voter suppression is OK when it is due to requiring voters to register? Anyone?

*crickets*

Can anyone answer why Cybrsage wants to suppress voting by already-registered voters, voters who have already gone through the registration process?

*crickets*

 

[a777pilot]

Once again, having an ID to vote is just fine but it is not, repeat, NOT the solution to the problem of voter fraud. I feel strongly that all non-eligible persons on the voter registration roles need to be purged and that from now on all those that wish to register to vote ought be required to prove that they are eligible to vote.

This is not against anyone. I don't give a flying fuck what your color is, or your religion or your age or your financial status. Just be eligible to vote.

That seems such a little thing to ask considering what the price that has been paid to preserve our right to vote:

 

[a777pilot]

Can anyone answer why Cybrsage wants to suppress voting by already-registered voters, voters who have already gone through the registration process?

*crickets*

Crickets my fuzzy ass.

The reason we need to purge to present voter rolls is because there are dead people on them. There are made-up people on them. There are non-citizens on them.

That is NOT voter suppression. I want every American citizen that is eligible to vote, that wants to vote, to vote.

 

[Jhhnn]

Can anyone answer why Cybrsage wants to suppress voting by already-registered voters, voters who have already gone through the registration process?

*crickets*

Because Cybr is a warped, smug, self righteous right wing Zealot & an obnoxious Troll who attempts to poison every thread he enters?

 

[dmcowen674]

Voter fraud is the biggest lie of 2012

I challenge anyone to come up with documented proof of voter fraud from a reputable source that shows more than a couple of dozen people a year in each state intentionally vote illegally.

Before you start looking you might want to check out the Republican National Lawyers Association which file a brief to support the new voting rules in Texas.

Here are the numbers. the RNL claims 311 cases in the last 10 years(though their 311 number actuallly includes cases back to 1997).
That's less than one vote per state per year. Yes, the best that the

Republicans could come up with is less than ONE person PER STATE per YEAR.

And it gets worse when you realize these were not convictions, but the number of people charged. Many of them were found innocent when they proved the were citizens, etc.

Here's some linkys:
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is...nore-the-facts
The above link is what the Republicans say.
The links below show the truth.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/pol...terf034087.php
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201112120006
http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-11/news/32633427_1_voter-id-law-penndot-ids-support-id-laws

I encourage you to do your own internet searches since there are many webpages devoted to this ridiculous Republican claim.

There is one thing this will accomplish for Republicans.

By knocking out the poor Democrat vote it allows them to pick up State, Congressional and Senate seats where they may have previously not picked them up.

That is even more important than the Oval Office seat as demonstrated by the state of Congress & the Senate the last four years.

 

[CycloWizard]

This problem is so contentious because neither side will admit that the other side might have a point and that they might have legitimate motives. If you are a liberal, consider that currently, one need not validate his or her identity in any way to cast a vote in most places. In Texas, I could collect every voter registration card (delivered by mail on the same day to everyone in the city) and cast one vote for each card I have. The election officials have no way to disqualify my votes because that card is all I need to vote. They are not allowed to ask for any form of verification of my identity and must let me vote. This is obviously ludicrous, but that is the system currently in place. It's additionally absurd since, in many states, police may demand/require you to produce ID at any time. If citizens have to have ID anyway, then I cannot conceive of any legitimate reason not to require an ID to vote.

If you are a conservative, realize that some people will not get an ID prior to the election even if it's free. Maybe they are out of the loop and don't know they need one, maybe they are old and crotchety, maybe they are lazy and irresponsible. If they show up to vote and can't, then they are denied a fundamental right which everyone should agree is unacceptable. On the other hand, if an ineligible voter shows up and votes, then they have cancelled a vote of an eligible voter which is equally as bad as disenfranchising the eligible voter in the first place.

In the end, we have to draw the line somewhere. Currently, there is no barrier to voter fraud in most places. Since we don't look for it, we can't measure it and we have no way to know whether it's a problem. We have to weigh the possibility of direct disenfranchisement (that is, the case where an eligible voter is not allowed to vote) against the possibility of indirect disenfranchisement (that is, the case where an ineligible voter votes). In my opinion, if some minimal burden is placed on the voter, it will likely tip the scales towards disallowing ineligible votes without unduly burdening eligible voters. The details of how to do this may be debated, but the basic principle seems secure.

 

[fskimospy]

We most certainly can measure it, we most certainly have undertaken significant efforts to measure it, and we have found that in person voter fraud for all intents and purposes does not exist.

I don't understand why people keep insisting we can't measure something when it is exceedingly clear that we not only can, but have done so repeatedly.

 

[Brainonska511]

Currently, there is no barrier to voter fraud in most places.

How is that? You probably still have to go to a poll worker, state your name (which will be in the registered voters book), the worker will look it up in a book, and most likely have you sign next to your name, which can then be compared to previous signatures or the one on file.

 

[a777pilot]

Because Cybr is a warped, smug, self righteous right wing Zealot & an obnoxious Troll who attempts to poison every thread he enters?

That's funny coming from you.

But then you and Cybr are part of what makes this site fun and interesting.

 

[Bowfinger]

Crickets my fuzzy ass.

The reason we need to purge to present voter rolls is because there are dead people on them. There are made-up people on them. There are non-citizens on them.

That is NOT voter suppression. I want every American citizen that is eligible to vote, that wants to vote, to vote.

There is certainly nothing wrong with removing ineligible voters from the registration rolls. That's a good thing. The issue, unfortunately, is that the GOP-initiated attempts to do so have (almost?) inevitably taken a chainsaw approach that indiscriminately hacked away not just the ineligible, but also great numbers of legitimately eligible voters. Moreover, those falsely purged invariably fell mostly in a left-leaning demographic ... but I'm sure that's always just a coincidence, right?

 

[Bowfinger]

Because Cybr is a warped, smug, self righteous right wing Zealot & an obnoxious Troll who attempts to poison every thread he enters?

Attempts? Can you show examples of where he's failed?

 

[a777pilot]

This problem is so contentious because neither side will admit that the other side might have a point and that they might have legitimate motives. If you are a liberal, consider that currently, one need not validate his or her identity in any way to cast a vote in most places. In Texas, I could collect every voter registration card (delivered by mail on the same day to everyone in the city) and cast one vote for each card I have. The election officials have no way to disqualify my votes because that card is all I need to vote. They are not allowed to ask for any form of verification of my identity and must let me vote. This is obviously ludicrous, but that is the system currently in place. It's additionally absurd since, in many states, police may demand/require you to produce ID at any time. If citizens have to have ID anyway, then I cannot conceive of any legitimate reason not to require an ID to vote.

If you are a conservative, realize that some people will not get an ID prior to the election even if it's free. Maybe they are out of the loop and don't know they need one, maybe they are old and crotchety, maybe they are lazy and irresponsible. If they show up to vote and can't, then they are denied a fundamental right which everyone should agree is unacceptable. On the other hand, if an ineligible voter shows up and votes, then they have cancelled a vote of an eligible voter which is equally as bad as disenfranchising the eligible voter in the first place.

In the end, we have to draw the line somewhere. Currently, there is no barrier to voter fraud in most places. Since we don't look for it, we can't measure it and we have no way to know whether it's a problem. We have to weigh the possibility of direct disenfranchisement (that is, the case where an eligible voter is not allowed to vote) against the possibility of indirect disenfranchisement (that is, the case where an ineligible voter votes). In my opinion, if some minimal burden is placed on the voter, it will likely tip the scales towards disallowing ineligible votes without unduly burdening eligible voters. The details of how to do this may be debated, but the basic principle seems secure.

Damn, that makes way too much sense for this thread.